Monday, March 18, 2013

Supremes Rule Bible as 'Hate Speech' in Canada

The path of anti-Christian intolerance leads south of the Canadian border . . .

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that citizens are NOT free to quote the Bible regarding the sin of homosexual behavior. Bill Whatcott's pamphlets (from 2001) using the word "sodomites," and criticizing the Gay Agenda in public schools, were deemed to incite hatred against homosexual people. The ruling requires Whatcott to pay a fine to two homosexuals who claimed to be offended, plus six-figure loser-pays legal costs.

Whatcott is now complaining that the Supreme Court ruling was based on a statement that he never made: That homosexuals are pedophiles.

“The ruling and the reasoning [of the court] is terrible. It’s worse than I expected. What it means is that my life is over as I know it.”

“The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination,” one flyer that was found to be in violation stated, citing 1 Corinthians 6:9. “Scripture records that Sodom and Gomorrah was given over completely to homosexual perversion and as a result destroyed by God’s wrath.”

Another flyer, entitled Keep Homosexuality Out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools, was written in response to the recommendation of the Saskatoon School Board that homosexuality be included in school curriculum. The Supreme Court declared the document to be unlawful because it called the homosexual acts that would be taught to children “filthy,” and contended that children are more interested in playing Ken and Barbie than “learning how wonderful it is for two men to sodomize each other.” The justices ruled that because the use of the word “sodomy” only referred to “two men” and not also the sex acts of heterosexuals, it was a direct target against a specific group of people.

The Supreme Court noted in its opinion, among other concerns, that Whatcott’s use of the Bible to target homosexuals was a problem.

“[Whatcott's] expression portrays the targeted group as a menace that could threaten the safety and well-being of others, makes reference to respected sources (in this case the Bible) to lend credibility to the negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred,” the panel ruled on Wednesday.

While speech opposing homosexuality remains legal in the United States, some note that the nation is heading in the same direction as Canada, as discrimination laws are being enforced by state Human Rights Commissions across the country.

[Whatcott's lawyer Thomas] Schuck said neither of the flyers that were found to violate the hate speech code referred to homosexuals as pedophiles, merely as promoters of a dangerous lifestyle. He said Christians have been similarly criticizing heterosexual behaviour like fornication and adultery for 2000 years. Still, he said his chances of a second kick at the can [via a Supreme Court rehearing] are slim.

The flyers, which drew four official complaints, did not explicitly state that all homosexuals are pedophiles.

One stated that “sodomite propaganda” will corrupt the children of Saskatchewan, and that civil law should discriminate against “sodomites and lesbians who want to remain in their lifestyle and proselytize vulnerable young people… Our children will pay the price in disease, death, abuse and ultimately eternal judgment if we do not say no to the sodomite desire to socialize your children into accepting something that is clearly wrong.”

The other said that society’s acceptance of homosexuality “will lead to the early death and morbidity of many children.” It also says that “sodomites,” by which he means gays, are “3 times more likely to sexually abuse children!”

A complaint was filed with Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission alleging Whatcott was promoting hatred against individuals based on their sexual orientation. The Human Rights Tribunal held the publications contravened s.14 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code on the basis that Whatcott’s views exposed persons to hatred and ridicule on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Whatcott argued that the statements contained in the leaflets did not meet the test for hate comments as defined under the Code. . . . [and] also argued that he was entitled to make the statements based on his constitutional protected right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

The Supreme Court of Canada found that certain parts of the Human Rights Code that prohibited the statements that ridiculed or belittled persons on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination were not constitutionally protected and did violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the sections of the Human Rights Code that prohibited hatred against persons based on a prohibited ground of discrimination was constitutional and was not protected on the basis of freedom of expression or freedom of religion.

In its decision, the Court pleased free-speech advocates by striking down a portion of the human rights code that prohibited expression that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity” of identifiable groups. But the Court then upheld the phrase “tends to expose to hatred,” wording which can have subjective meaning, and it left the right to hear free-speech cases with the province’s human rights commission.

In effect, the court upheld a system in which people can be prosecuted for hate speech without benefit of the rules of evidence, right to counsel and the presumption of innocence, rights found in a court of law when Criminal Code charges are laid. This means people remain vulnerable to complaints about religious expression . . .

. . . the ruling also made the rather startling claim that criticizing behaviour is essentially the same as criticizing a person because, said the Court, in some cases behaviour is integral to a group’s identity.

The Court’s conflation of behaviour and individual puts it at odds with most religious teaching and is a troubling conclusion to come from our highest court. Additionally, the ruling states that truth is not always an acceptable defence if statements are delivered in a “hateful” way.